There's another part of this that you should think about seriously -- what happens if Karl Rove wins, and the Tea Party is crushed?

I don't think that is Rove's goal;
If he starts running candidates against folks like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jerry Moran , or Tim Scott then his PAC is just as shortsided as the Tea Party.

From what I have read of this new Rove-PAC the goal is to stop the flood of stacking Primaries in the cases of the Christine O'Donnel's & Richard Murdoch's of the world which I am greatly in favor of.

There are Senate and House seats that nominees who best represent the voters are from the Tea Party engine, however there are Senate and House seats that nominees who best represent the voters are from the traditional side of the GOP.

Cramming the Tea Party down the throats of Indiana voters or Delaware votes tends to result in a Democrat being elected.

Bugs wrote:

Yes, but can you find any other part of organized political opinion that even recognizes that the debt is spiraling out of control, and it threatens the future generations of Americans, courts a financial crisis of some kind, and will squeeze the social security, medicare, and Obamacare programs into penury?

Sure,
But the problem with the Tea Party solution is that its nothing more then a theoretical solution which is unimplementable in reality.

Do I think passing the Ryan budget is a good start?
Sure,

Do I think we need to go further then what is laid out in the Ryan budget?
Of course,

Do I think that either of the above options will be passed through a Democrat controlled Senate?
No.

I don't believe that Tea Party candidates can secure 51 Senate Seats;
There are just too many states (primarily in the North) which have outright rejected them, so this becomes an matter of how can we move forward?

We both agree the Democrat route is terrible;
I think generally speaking the Tea Party agenda on fiscal matters holds some appeal with both of us.

The problem is that I don't believe that Tea Party can ever have a Senate majority without the GOP, but I think the GOP can have one without the Tea Party.

I would simply rather it be a mix between the two.

It seems I keep going back to the same issue;
Would you rather have control of both Houses with "RINOS" like Lugar and Snowe who voted along party disciple > 70% of the time,

Or a Democrat controlled Senate with Donelley and Angus but knowing you ran principled candidates against them?

I would sooner get what I want most of the time, then get what I want none of the time.

As I have said so many times;
Win the Senate, retain the Senate, and when you have a buffer cull the RINOS

I came back here to present this as evidence of the alienation of big parts of the American electorate, which I think is hard for Canadians to really appreciate.

Quote:

Did Rush Limbaugh just launch a Tea Party revival effort?

Rush Limbaugh opened his show this afternoon proclaiming that for the first time in his career, he was ashamed of his country.

Why? Limbaugh explained that both political parties in Washington refused to stop spending and used alarmist scare tactics every time anyone proposed cuts to government programs.

"To be watching all of this, to have my intelligence – all of us – to have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it is….it just makes me ashamed," Limbaugh explained, "Seriously man, here we get worked up over 44 billion dollars – that’s the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year."

Limbaugh added that the government would continue to spend more money this year than last year in spite of the sequester cuts.

Limbaugh criticized the "fear and panic" prompted by both parties together with the media each time there were any proposed spending cuts.

"I've said the same things over and over for 25 years," Limbaugh said, adding that it didn't matter who was in power. "It's the same stuff, it's the same threats, it's the same arguments, over and over nothing ever changes."

"We just keep spending more money, we create more dependency, we get more and more irresponsible one crisis to the next, all of them manufactured," Limbaugh added. "Except for the real crisis that nobody ever addresses and that is we can't afford it."

Limbaugh's comments reflect a common Tea Party frustration not only with Democrats but also with Republicans. Stop spending all the money. Stop creating false panics every time someone proposes cuts in government spending. And stop spending more money than you did the year before.

If Rush Limbaugh can put aside his Republican party loyalties to just let this gasp of public exasperation out ... how much more must millions of others feel, in their private moments?

Cosmo -- you say there are other groups organizing a resistance to the spending. Where? I don't know who you could be talking about. But what will happen when the consequences of all this profligacy come home to roost? And what scale of manipulations will be necessary, at what cost, to keep the leaky boat afloat while the politicians fiddle, and the bankers party?

Those despicable populists of the Tea Party have to be accommodated, because, otherwise, the energy will go into something outside politics, and you may like that even less.

Rove is not a stupid man. I don't expect that he's going after sitting Republicans, but he's going to stop (if he can) the renewal of the GOP. I don't think he cares that much about the ideological stripe of the candidate, frankly. I don't know how the argument against the Tea Party holds together without the poor besotted Christine O'Donnel ... but she's your best case. (What about all the other states where the party man lost races that they ought to have won, according to no less an establishment character than Newt Gingrich?)

Just take a peek at how the Republicans of the Rove era miss the boat. I hope you can stay for the whole 11 minutes because it highlights how technological backward the Romney campaign, as well as a lot of the other blunders. As Lutz put it, the Democrats made a commitment to the next generation while the Republicans made a commitment to the last generation.

Rove is trying to maintain his own position in the party. He raises huge amounts of money. What's his payoff?

The point is, the Republican establishment lost. According to Glen Reynolds, Rove hasn't had a good election since 2004. As more and more comes to light, there was a lot of incompetence. They aren't using the new computer techniques that are lumped together as 'the social media'. The top campaign manager ignores Twitter as 'silly'.

I don't know how the argument against the Tea Party holds together without the poor besotted Christine O'Donnel ... but she's your best case. (What about all the other states where the party man lost races that they ought to have won, according to no less an establishment character than Newt Gingrich?)

While Christine O'Donnel paints the most colorful picture, she is as I have been noting for the last few posts one of many;

Going solely by memory:
Todd Akin, Richard Murdoch, Sharon Angle, Denny Rehberg, Ken Buck and even to a far lesser extent Pete Hoekstra were all in states where the GOP at some point polled ahead of the incumbent Democrat Senator or Democrat candidate till the position was filled by one of the above.

Joe Miller could have easily been part of that list had

As to the "Partymen" who lost winnable seats;
Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin and I will even give you Linda McMahon in Conn who both fill the same criteria I am holding the above seven Tea Party-ers to.

The biggest difference however is in three of the Tea Party candidates case they preferred establishment candidate held a double digit lead with general voters which vanished upon the tea party candidate winning the nomination.

Which really leads me to question your thought about the Tea Party killing momentum for the GOP in general,

Because had they stuck to winning primaries where they were actually the desired candidate rather then stacking the primaries with friendly delegates we would likely have a GOP controlled Senate at this moment

Granted one filled with Mike Castles, Snowe, Lugars and other undesirables, but a majority none the less.

Bugs wrote:

The point is, the Republican establishment lost. According to Glen Reynolds, Rove hasn't had a good election since 2004. As more and more comes to light, there was a lot of incompetence. They aren't using the new computer techniques that are lumped together as 'the social media'. The top campaign manager ignores Twitter as 'silly'.

As I said in the prior post;
Its truly amazing how quickly people will distance themselves from a sunk ship.

I will give you an example;
You didn't want to claim Todd Akin as a Tea Party member above, till I pointed out he was one of the first to sit in the Tea Party Caucus in the House, heck he is still listed as a House member of the Tea Party Caucus.

No one wants to be associated with the stink of defeat, I don't blame the Tea Party for doing their best to distance themselves from that loss.

Its human nature to want to distance from carnage, and that is ultimately what we are seeing now.

Why did Romney lose?

There are a 1000 reasons, to point at a singular article and say "This is why" is entertaining and even an interesting insight but nothing more then folks who lost trying to explain why it wasn't them or their preferred entities fault.

Where did it go wrong?

Bush, Rubio, Jindal, Barbour, and Walker not running didn't help, if anything to raise the tone of discussion in the primary to discuss policy and platform rather then why Obama is the devil and Romney is a millionaire, Cain, Gingrich, Bachman, and Santorum attacking Romney's wealth certainly didn't help the optics of the campaign, the refusal of any side to believe that Obama was polling ahead didn't help, the lack of platform details certainly didn't help, Romney refusing to explain the economics (as far as where money would come from) while trying to be the economy candidate didn't help, and the fact that GOP voters didn't come out in states because of the above didn't help, having a month long debate about rape and abortion thanks to Akin and Murdoch that fell almost inline with the release of the GOP platform didn't help either.

The mess of the above isn't an establishment problem;
Its a by-product of the GOP and the Tea Party clashing in the same manner the Reform and PC's parties did.

Bugs wrote:

They should move aside, and let a new bunch have a crack at it.

Asking for the establishment GOP to step aside is something I wouldn't mind occurring, just for 2014 so that my point on a more micro level can be made once and for all because seven examples clearly isnt enough.

2014 should be a cakewalk;
There isn't a single GOP Senate Seat that should be in any trouble of being retained, not once can I remember an election where the GOP was so safe within the Senate.

However, I know the Tea Party will target Mitch McConnell and his safe Kentucky seat and if that happens I can almost assure Ashley Judd (D) will win the seat (assuming she runs which is likely)

I know the Tea Party will run someone against Shelley Moore Capito who should win the GOP nomination in West Virgina and easily win the election in a seat that is finally in play with Rockefeller retiring.

Paul Broun (Tea Party) will win the GOP nomination in Georgia making what should be a fairly safe Senate seat into some degree of entertainment right up till election day.

I am sure in Alaska the simple process of Mead Treadwell (who should win the nomination) or Sean Parnell beating Mark Begich will be complicated by the Tea Party likely trying to cram someone like Joe Miller into the fold, however unlike the Murkowski situation these hijinx could actually see Begich being re-elected.

Then you have South Dakota where Mike Rounds (former Governor) should easily give Tim Johnson a run for his money, and I consider Rounds to be pretty darn Conservative on both sides of the spectrum yet just for the sake of complication I suspect that Kristi Noem or someone else deemed worthy will muck up the gears of that election.

I think this may be one issue where we agree 100%.

In 2014 there is no greater election occurring to blame the losses on (much like 2010), however unlike 2010 there are a glut of easily winnable seats and no GOP Senator in any real danger of losing their seat.

Let's see what happens,
The Tea Party has a bus load of money, which why we are already seeing candidates for that election rear their heads they will get their fair share of opportunities.

I don't want to make a big issue out of Todd Aiken, but Sarah Palin supported a woman candidate in Missouri, and that candidate could have won. The vote was split between a few candidates, but Aiken was not the Tea Party candidate, and some say he was always unelectable. I don't really know, but any politician would try to get Tea Party support after they got the nomination, and that might have something to do with who caucus Akin sat with.

Palin worked tirelessly to bring together support behind candidates she vetted. Which earned her the widespread contempt of those who know better than 'the People'. Why do you think the media went after he with such venom? As I recall, you don't like her much either. What is it about this woman that makes the professional classes turn up their noses? Is it that she speaks in the cadences and rhythms of middle America? Is it that she combines a family with a political career, and therefore somehow refutes all the Hillary Clintons, who, incidentally, let an ambassador be killed in Benghazi. (I don't think Palin would have gone home early that night, to tell you the truth.)

I understand your argument, and the arithmetic. I just don't understand why you want to stick with losers. What does Rove bring to the table, a dozen or more years after his initial success? I don't dislike him, understand, but why should he be around for another losing election cycle?

Did you watch the pjtv video? It seems to give ample evidence of how 'out of it' the Republicans are. I think Newt Gingrich is another old dog that ought to retire to a elder statesman role, but he has estimated the Republicans are a decade behind the Democrats on all this social media stuff.

I know about this because I signed up at his website when I was pulling for him against Hllary. I get their handouts -- at least two or three a week, from everybody from Obama himself, Michelle, Joe Biden, Messina, and others ... bombarded, I'd call it, for money, with special videos, with contests, and with misinformation that demonizes the Republicans. They had google on side, so if you typed in, say, tax cuts, or any issue that might bother you, the top item to come up would be Obama's (false) promises on tax cuts, or whatever the other issue. Right now they're putting out all kinds of scary lies about the effect of the sequester ... and the media pick up these same claims. They said that the Defense Department, alone, would be laying off 800,000 civilians because of the cuts. But you know and I know that the cuts shouldn't be that calamitous, because (a) there are no actual cuts, cuts come out of regularly scheduled increases in their budgets, and (b) the total amount of money involved is only $88 billion, spread out over the whole of government, and only half of it hitting the defense department.

And I am not even talking about twitter.

Nor am I saying much about the role of the media, but it is considerable. Notice how they are attacking Rubio and Cruz, the two Hispanic new faces in the Republican party. They know that Rubio, along with Ryan, are leading candidates for the next nomination, and they are trying to destroy them before they get a chance. Don't tell me that this isn't coordinated. Politico just got dropped from the list of reporting organizations that have regular, off-the-record meetings with White House personnel, for example. Why? Because they were mildly critical of Obama's media policy. http://www.politico.com/story/.....html?hp=t1

I don't know what makes Mitch McConnell sacred. I don't know if he'd be my target, but he does seem to get regularly out-foxed by that monotonic dud, Harry Reid. I don't see why he should have a coronation, under the circumstances. The point is, the local Tennessee people probably know better than we do about whether the challenge would be worthwhile. And just the threat works.

Face it, the Republicans haven't been able to get their message out in an effective way, and the landscape is changing in ways that should give them some advantage, and those advantages should increase. There is, after all, a economic crisis brewing, and a lot of people are uneasy about it.

Part of the problem is the media, but the social media are the way to get around that. Using it, you can target your voters, and get specific information to them without it being vetted by the lamestream media.

I'm sorry, Cosmo, I understand your argument perfectly well. I don't know the state-by-state picture like you do, but it staggers me that you choose to stick with those responsible for the backwardness of the party.

As I recall, you don't like her much either. What is it about this woman that makes the professional classes turn up their noses? Is it that she speaks in the cadences and rhythms of middle America?

I don't like Palin?

As I recall I was the first one on these very forums to discuss "what if" regarding a straight talking Alaskan Governor regarding the 2008 VP nomination?

If we are that interested; I am sure I can dig up the links.

I like her;
I hate how she is villainized for not having a Harvard vocabulary when what she is saying is actually pretty damn smart, and when she is trying to be charming its taken as some sort of "bumbkin" speak.

However, I didn't like her personal issues with Lisa Murkowski resulting in Miller and I am not always 100% behind who she supports but generally speaking in some parts of the country I can see why she is very effective.

Bugs wrote:

I understand your argument, and the arithmetic. I just don't understand why you want to stick with losers. What does Rove bring to the table, a dozen or more years after his initial success? I don't dislike him, understand, but why should he be around for another losing election cycle?

I don't think its an either or situation.
The Tea Party and the GOP should stop stacking primaries and let voters truly nominate who they think can win.

As for "sticking with losers".
How exactly is the Tea Party the "winner" in this situation?

The GOP and Tea Party are both losers in this equation, the 2010 and 2012 Senate races made that very clear.

Rove may be living on the past glory of 2004, but the Tea Party is living off a 2010 House Election coupled with some pretty brutal situation of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2010 & 2012 Senate elections as well as the 2012 House Election.

Bugs wrote:

Did you watch the pjtv video? It seems to give ample evidence of how 'out of it' the Republicans are. I think Newt Gingrich is another old dog that ought to retire to a elder statesman role, but he has estimated the Republicans are a decade behind the Democrats on all this social media stuff.

I think that seeing one side of the story on any singular issue makes that side seem correct,

Its interesting, however I fail to see how the Tea Party has used social media to their advantage?

You keep citing the failed practices of the GOP, but much like the GOP the Tea Party has been largely ineffective against the Democrat's save for a singular election in a singular House of Government.

Bugs wrote:

Nor am I saying much about the role of the media, but it is considerable.

No question.
The GOP is not being helped by the CNN's of the world, but at the same time I would say that the Republicans of any stripe are failing to make good use of the news outlet they do have.

Watching either a Tea Party or Conventional GOP member rail on about Obama's birth certificate for 30 minutes during the height of the primary and the height of national attention on the GOP made them all look like crazy people.

You have a mouthpiece;
Use it to sell something you are doing, not damn the other guy, at least not all the time.

Bugs wrote:

I don't know what makes Mitch McConnell sacred. I don't know if he'd be my target, but he does seem to get regularly out-foxed by that monotonic dud, Harry Reid. I don't see why he should have a coronation, under the circumstances. The point is, the local Tennessee people probably know better than we do about whether the challenge would be worthwhile.

The numbers for primaries are public record;
The Tea Party has largely done a very effective job organizing their grassroots to descend onto Primaries to elect their candidate,

That has nothing to do with the majority of the electorate.

Murdouch destroyed Lugar in the primary, yet lost to the Democrats in the general in a State the Democrats didn't even bother to contest the last time around.

That's not letting the people decide; that's gaming the system to assure you candidate see's the ballot and in nearly every instance this has happened the Tea Party candidate has lost in the general.

McConnell is just an example at random;
Safe seat, should be re-elected without much issue.

However I could see him being targeted, the primary process going the same route as we saw in Indiana, Delaware, Alaska, etc etc

Followed by a Democrat winning in the General.

You are clearly more in touch with the methodology of the Tea Party then I,

Do they consider Indiana to be a victory for them?
The removal of a GOP Senator who voted with the party 85% of the time with someone who was entirely in line with the Tea Party who then lost in the General?

Is the goal that its better to lose on principal then win and have to compromise it?

Bugs wrote:

I'm sorry, Cosmo, I understand your argument perfectly well. I don't know the state-by-state picture like you do, but it staggers me that you choose to stick with those responsible for the backwardness of the party.

As I said to start this whole process;
The Tea Party is in large part the reason the Democrat's control the Senate.

I am yet to see anything to show me otherwise;
Bad candidates who stand for good policy who can't win in the primary.

This is what I have seen, this is what the electoral record shows.
Its not a philosophical debate, its a factual one.

I like what the Tea Party stands for on fiscal issues;
Perhaps even more so then the conventional members of the GOP.

The problem I have is that the Tea Party methodology is not one which has appeal across 50 states and 100 Senate Seats.

What works for Rand Paul in Kentucky doesn't work in lets say Delaware.

While I know you HATE politics reduced down to a game of tact,
That is largely what it is.

First one to 51 wins.

I think the Tea Party message can get some STRONG candidates elected in some States, some fiscally conservative solid additions to the GOP caucus in the Senate.

However, I think they can cost us some pretty good additions in the Senate at the expense of principal.

The difference between my position and that of the Tea Party and of Karl Rove is that I believe that you need to understand your electorate and what they want.

The Democrats in this regard with Ben Nelson and Heidi Heitkamp showed me that they "get it", that in some states its better to have a Senator that supports you 60% of the time then it is to have one who supports you 5% of the time.

This is something the Tea Party doesn't get, and something I certainly hope Karl Rove understands before he starts targeting some Tea Party Senators in the same way the Tea Party has targeted sitting GOP Senators.

This is beating a dead horse. We've both probably said all we have to say on the topic. I don't want to bicker about who's the asshole, Palin or Murkowski, and all of that.

Where I continue to disagree with you is your determination to blame the failures of the Republican Party on the Tea Party. I don't say you are entirely wrong, but I do think you pretty much lay it all at their doorstep.

Your best point has to do with the Senate elections. Mine has to do with the Presidential election.

I just posted an article, about how Obama has released people in custody of the Immigration officials -- probably illegal immigrants -- even before the sequester negotiations were over. The drama ahead is clear. No force in the Senate is going to do anything about it. Congress seems unable to restrain the spending -- which is its role.

Without the actions of the Tea Parthy, would the Senate, with a nominal narrow Republican majority, but with the de facto presence of several RINOs, be any different? It's not certain.

Where we are in most disagreement, I think, is about the perilous state of the economy. Nobody on here wants to even talk about it. As I see it, our biggest trading partner is now locked into a set of stimulus policies that aren't working. But, sputtering as it is, if these stimuli are removed, the economy will go into official depression.

I think we are largely in agreement to that point, but you don't want anything done that will cause a slump, for fear that the results will cascade into a 1930ies-type depression ... and I think better sooner than later, because the severity of the inevitable depression is a direct function of the amount of debt incurred avoiding that depression.

And that's pretty much where we stand. With respect, I think you're wrong. Why? Because your scenario (if I have it right) has no way out. It puts the US government on an endless treadmill, reacting to financial problems in the whole of the West, without any plan to real recovery of the economy as a whole.

I feel we are already at a point where we can say it would have been better to let the banks go broke. It would have been a tough four years, but we'd probably be in a real recovery now. My view. If it comes to that anyway ... the Obama administration will be the worst performers in American history.

This is beating a dead horse. We've both probably said all we have to say on the topic. I don't want to bicker about who's the asshole, Palin or Murkowski, and all of that.

Where I continue to disagree with you is your determination to blame the failures of the Republican Party on the Tea Party. I don't say you are entirely wrong, but I do think you pretty much lay it all at their doorstep.

I think that is fair;
We are clearly not going to sway each other.

What I believe has been lost in this is that I don't think its an either/or situation. Its both.

The GOP and the Tea Party have a common partisan enemy;
Yet they continue to carve each other to bits.

The Tea Party has sent some strong bright people to Washington in both the Senate and the House, and I believe the GOP has as well.

The problem is that both sides are really fighting over maybe 10% of ideological difference?

In the process they are allowing victory of a party that has a 90% ideological difference.

I think there is room for both.

Bugs wrote:

Without the actions of the Tea Party, would the Senate, with a nominal narrow Republican majority, but with the de facto presence of several RINOs, be any different? It's not certain.

Not to dwell...
But we are talking about a seven Senator swing, 1x from IND and 6x from DEM I would even go as far as to say if we didnt have all the Akin and Murdoch noise maybe even Thompson and McMahon would be in the Senate as well.

GOP 54
DEM 45
IND 1

At that point you can even have folks like Snowe and Lugar vote with the Democrats, it wouldn't matter.

You pulled out Lugar's record;
I think if there is a singular thing we can agree its that Lugar would vote more often with the Tea Party agenda then Donnelly will.

If I were to sum up my argument in a single line:

I would rather have what I want 70% of the time than 10%, its why I voted Harper.
Not perfect, but better then the alternative.

It's two weeks later, and events seem to be bearing me out. Rand Paul has shown us the Power of One ... in his filibuster of the nomination of Brennan as CIA chief.

We are also treated to the Republican establishment reaction, as expressed by John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

The two of them have done their best to discredit Rand Paul, even though his efforts -- largely symbolic -- have energized the base, and made Obama retreat. Millions followed the debate, and in the end, the White House did produce a statement agreeing that it'd probably be wrong to fire drone missiles at Americans on American soil, unless they were actually planting a bomb or something.

McCain called the three main Tea Party senators "whacko birds".

Obama also took a beating on his efforts to get gun control expanded, mostly with no Republican leadership involved. Obama and the Democrats have misjudged the issue on every front. The best they could do was send out Joe Biden to tell people that a shotgun was enough to repel a home-invader.

The Republican establishment went into hiding.

If you notice, now Obama's actually being conciliatory. He's trying to get a 'sequester deal' even though that's the one achievement of the Republicans in the new term. He's angling to get tax increases by saving some of the defense cuts. The thing is ... does anyone really believe there isn't a lot of $billions that could be saved in the Department of Defense?

A budget showdown is also (finally) approaching. The Senate majority leader has agreed to allow the Senate to produce a budget. The House, under the chairmanship of Paul Ryan, is producing another one, this more severe than the last. This one balances the budget in ten years -- and assumes that Obamacare is cancelled!

I don't see how the absence of Richard Lugar affects any of this at all. What Cosmo forgets is that, when the American public gets aroused, they can affect their political representatives ... unlike us, in Canada, where MPs obediently raise their hands to vote as their leaders tell them, no matter what.

I don't see how the absence of Richard Lugar affects any of this at all.

Because neither budget will make it to the President's desk.
The power of the the GOP in the 1990's and its ability to have legislation they wanted passed, and budgets they wanted passed was the fact that both houses passed legislation that forced the hand of the President to veto it.

A Senate that contained far more RINOs then this one does.

When both houses passed budgets and the President vetoed those budgets it resulted in a government shutdown twice, all because of the stroke of a pen.

In 1995 and 1996 both houses of Government took a hardline stance and forced the President to shut down government,

President Obama enjoys insulation from being "the bad guy" because of the Democrat majority in the Senate, something that Clinton did not have the luxury of from 1994 onward.

That stance and that ability to control both houses resulted in balanced budgets from 1997 thru 2000.

This comes down to numbers Vs. Principal.
You will get to see a budget you like in a situation like this, but one that won't ever go into effect.

Right now the GOP and the Tea Party need to make sure that the half dozen Democrat Senate seats up for grabs in 2014 are won, I don't care if its by the Rand Pauls or the John McCains of the party.

Get the majority in both houses, start forcing the President to veto.

Last edited by cosmostein on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:34 pm; edited 2 times in total

It's two weeks later, and events seem to be bearing me out. Rand Paul has shown us the Power of One ... in his filibuster of the nomination of Brennan as CIA chief.

We are also treated to the Republican establishment reaction, as expressed by John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

Greatly disappointed by McCain and Graham on this issue.
As I have contended since the start of this debate the GOP needs the Tea Party and the Tea Party needs the GOP, the GOP doing exactly what I have thumbed my nose at the Tea Party for doing is equally counterproductive and shame on them for doing so.

What Rand Paul did using a filibuster in order to take on the White House on an issue that was important to him and important to some Americans was admirable and far more productive then a filibuster where a Senator will sit there and read the rules of bridges for house on end simply to delay the vote without any benefit to it.

Another example of RINO Republicans joining with gun-control Democrats to sandbag their base.

Quote:

Dem, GOP Senators Reach Background Check Deal

WASHINGTON— Two key senators have reached a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more gun buyers, a Senate aide and lobbyist said Wednesday, an agreement that could build support for President Barack Obama’s drive to curb firearms violence in the wake of the elementary school shootings in Connecticut.

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., planned to announce their compromise later Wednesday morning. Subjecting more firearms purchases to federal background checks has been the chief goal of Obama and gun control supporters, who promote the system as a way to prevent criminals and other potentially dangerous people from getting the weapons.

Meanwhile, the Senate is ready for an opening vote on restricting guns as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set a roll call for Thursday on starting consideration of the firearms legislation. The background check deal makes it even likelier that Democrats will win enough Republican support to thwart an effort by conservatives and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to block consideration from even starting.

The background check deal would expand the system to cover all commercial sales, such as at gun shows and online. Records of the transactions would have to be kept by licensed gun dealers, the same system used currently.

The details have not been released at this point. The deal, apparently, is to be buried as an amendment to a 1200 page bill. The bill will likely pass before the other side gets an idea of what the actual 'compromise' will be, so that the pro-gun crowd can't mobilize until too late -- just like Obamacare.

And what's the 'compromise' anyway? What are the RINOs getting in return? When somebody figures that out, I hope they'll record it here.

Hopefully, Rand Paul will filibuster the deal, and it will be stopped. Personally, I don't have a lot of zeal for this issue, but it is clear why there won't be a rational reaction to the economic realities until the RINOs are sent to Coventry.

The continuing point I am trying to make is that the RINOs are, in effect, the right wing of the Democratic Party. What has happened, since I posted the article yesterday, is that enough Republicans have joined the Democrats that a filibuster is no longer possible.

Of course, the Bill still has to get through the House, where it should fail, based on the party split in that body. We will have to wait and see. (If it passes, the Republican Party will have a huge problem with its base, and there may be a third party emerge. That's my own private assessment, nobody else seems to be worried about that.)

To me, this is the reason the Tea Party offers the best hope, even though it may very well be a scant one. Cosmo, on the other hand, sees the Tea Party as the problem, and hopes that it will disappear. I don't think it's a disagreement on basics, it's just two different assessments of the quickest and best route to fiscal sanity.

As for the issue itself -- it seems clear that American authorities want to start registering weapons through Alan Rock types of deceptions. None of this would have done an iota of good in saving the kids that were shot up at Sandy Hook, or most (if not all) of the other massacres that have occurred recently in the USA. It's all about registering weapons, and extending the spread of bureaucratic supervision over the areas of life where Americans used to have freedom.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum